Techwizguy

Stories of tech issues resolved. I was thinking maybe someone else might benefit from my experiences, as I have benefited from others experience. Or laugh at my folly. Your choice.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Electromagnetic radiation is unlikely to cause cancer

I think this is interesting...

The proton precession magnetometer operates on the principal that the protons in all atoms are spinning on an axis aligned with the magnetic field. Ordinarily, protons tend to line up with the earth's magnetic field. When subjected to an artificially-induced magnetic field, the protons will align themselves with the new field. When this new field is interrupted, the protons return to their original alignment with the earth's magnetic field.

I didn't know that protons had any spin on them. Cool.

Here is some more info: about solar radiation.

"Insolation is a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given time."

"The radiant power is distributed across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, although most of the power is in the visible light portion of the spectrum. The Sun's rays are attenuated as they pass though the atmosphere, thus reducing the insolation at the Earth's surface to approximately 1000 watts per square meter for a surface perpendicular to the Sun's rays at sea level on a clear day."

I thought it was 100 watts, but it's 1000. That's the peak power. The average is 250 watts:

"The actual figure varies with the Sun angle at different times of year, according to the distance the sunlight travels through the air, and depending on the extent of atmospheric haze and cloud cover. Ignoring clouds, the average insolation for the Earth is approximately 250 watts per square meter (6 (kW·h/m²)/day), taking into account the lower radiation intensity in early morning and evening, and its near-absence at night."

Here is a chart of the wavelengths of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere (yellow), and reaching the surface (red). Cell phone frequencies are on the infrared side of visible light...wayyy off the chart on the right.

(A nm is a nanometer, 1 billionth of a meter. Cell phone signals are at a wavelength of a foot, or 304,800,000 nm. Microwave ovens are at a wavelength of 112,400,000 nm or 4.8 inches.)

Now, as we go left on the chart, the emf's have more energy. X-rays are off the chart on the left. They are called ionizing radiation. They have so much energy they can break the bonds that hold molecules together, creating ions. They can break molecules in cells, in the DNA.

RF radiation does not have enough energy to break molecules.

X-rays have about 1,000 eV of energy, while the photon energy of radio waves from cellular phone towers is about one millionth of an eV, not enough to alter molecules in the body.

The difference in energy: 1000 vs 0.000,001

Looking at the chart, RF radiation is to the right of Infrared radiation, therefore, RF radiation has less energy than the infrared radiation from your oven, or fireplace. Even visible light has more energy than EMFs.

And, here is some info from Cancer.org

Moreover, public exposure near cell phone towers (Way more juice than your phone) is not significantly different than background levels of RF radiation in urban areas from other sources, such as radio and television broadcast stations.

What Does the Epidemiologic Evidence Say?

No human studies have focused specifically on cellular phone towers or even on radio waves more generally. Several studies have looked at the effects of radio waves and microwaves combined; these have generally not shown any increase in cancer, except for a US Air Force study that suggested an increase in brain tumors in association with radiofrequency/microwave exposure.

What Does the Animal Evidence Say?

A number of animal studies have been conducted, generally showing no carcinogenic (cancer-causing) effect of radio waves. Several experiments have used exposure levels that cause a rise in tissue temperature(!), and even in these studies, there was no increase in DNA mutations or in cancer. A recent review concluded that: "The scientific evidence indicates that exposure to radiofrequency radiation fields is not mutagenic and is therefore unlikely to act as an initiator of carcinogenesis.” (Emphasis, mine)